User talk:Bradbutler01

Welcome...

Hello, Bradbutler01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 七星 (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Your recent edit to the page Carolina-NC State rivalry appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any other tests that you may do and take a look at the welcome page, if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. You must provide reliable sources that support your assertion. Your link does not offer any proof that anyone associated with UNC defaced the mural. Please read WP:RELIABLE for more information. Also, do not further edit this without discussion on talk. Fletch81 (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not implied you aren't worthy of editing the page. What I have stated is that you have included information that is not from a reliable source (statefansnation is a pro-NCSU site that would not qualify under WP:RELIABLE). In addition, you implicated people associated with UNC as the culprits in the defacing of the mural. There is no proof that this occurred, and Wikipedia is not a place for speculation. I fail to understand how you are accusing me of "blatant bias." Furthermore, since there is no proof that this was done by Carolina or State students, mention of it does not belong in the rivalry article. Perhaps a more suitable place would be in the article for the Free Expression Tunnel, but again I caution you to not include speculation and use reliable sources in your editing of this article. Best wishes. Fletch81 (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To address your points, I do in fact spend most of my time removing vandalism. If I errantly removed an addition as vandalism, I assure you it was an oversight on my behalf. I act here in good faith. I warned you for vandalism because adding an unproven POV repeatedly can be considered a form of vandalism. Once again, the WRAL article does not implicate anyone associated with Carolina in its article. If you would like to speculate (which wikipedia is not a place for), you could speculate many different theories as to the responsible party, including NC State students, alumni, or fans. That leads down a slippery slope that is inappropriate for this article. As I said, since this defacing occurred on a mural dedicated to Kay Yow and the culprits are unknown, it may be more appropriate for the Free Expression Tunnel article rather than the Carolina-NC State rivalry article. Since you have found a reliable source in the WRAL article, I welcome you to introduce it into the Free Expression Tunnel article. From the linked WRAL article:

"Sgt. John Seay, with N.C. State campus police, said it is unknown who defaced the mural. Automated surveillance cameras monitor both sides of the tunnel, but Seay did not know if they captured the act."

Your intial edits stated "After the 2009 basketball game in Raleigh, UNC students painted over a memorial portrait of cancer victim and Coach Kay Yow in the expression tunnel with light blue-painted obscenities and pro-cancer messages." This isn't an issue of vanity, this is an issue of fact. If it is in fact uncovered that this was done by a Carolina or State student, it may warrant inclusion in the rivalry article. Until then, my position will not likely change. Regards. Fletch81 (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To address your most recent message: I spend most of my time on here fighting vandalism. Outside of that, if I catch an error in grammar or something blatantly lacking citation, I'll correct it. I agree with you that InsideCarolina and theWolfWeb message boards aren't reliable sources - you could debate that their articles could be a source of information as long as opinion is not being introduced. However, the Daily Tar Heel, along with NC State's Technician are reliable sources. There are obviously some broken links and missing citations within the article that need to be addressed. However, that does not justify adding unproven statements, as you did before. Regards. Fletch81 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "safe assumption" is not sufficient for wikipedia. A "safe assumption" is also not a revelation of fact, as you have presented no facts other than the mural was defaced. If you include your opinion, it will be removed, and you will be warned for vandalism. If you would like, we can both request an administrator intervene. Since you are new to wikipedia, perhaps they can clarify a few of the policies of wikipedia. As far as the links to the message boards, I acknowledged those are not reliable links and should be removed. Fletch81 (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I could just as easily say "The light-blue paint and the fact that it showed up immediately following the NCSU-UNC basketball game have led some to believe that the mural was defaced by NCSU students or fans due to their anger over the loss in an attempt to make UNC look bad." Once again, this leads down a slippery slope that is not intended for wikipedia. I have added a Request for Comment to the talk page. I will let other editors weigh their opinions on this. Fletch81 (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article, and all it states is a second-hand opinion of an NCSU student that they couldn't tell who did it. The exact quote from the article is attributed to an NCSU student, but not a direct quote " Rogers said she couldn't tell if the author was an actual Carolina student, but the writer was a North Carolina fan." That is more speculation from a biased source. I am awaiting the results of an RfC on this matter. Fletch81 (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Technician article is qualifying something as a fact that is not a fact. The NCSU Police have stated that it is unknown who defaced the mural. The Technician is relying on a statement of opinion and passing that off as fact. There is a difference. The request for comment is for other editors (many who are not familiar with the situation, ie they have no dog in the fight) to weigh the information and give their opinion on the matter. This is standard procedure on wikipedia. Once again, no proof has been offered. The piece in the Technician gave an opinion. They did not qualify where their proof came from. Its as valid as me saying a nun did it. Until a fact is produced implicating a particular person or persons, it is all speculation. Wikipedia is intended for facts, not speculation. You have accused me several times of not wanting Carolina to look bad, which I have ignored. You are to assume good faith in fellow editors, and wikipedia is not designed for vanity. I have tried through civil discourse with you since you are new to wikipedia, but your insistance on including this without proof makes me question your good faith efforts in editing this article. Perhaps we should both step back and refrain from further edits until other editors weigh in. Fletch81 (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is refreshing to have a reasonable exchange on wikipedia. To make this brief... If there is an unsourced statement in the article, it can be challenged by requesting a citation or removed. I recommend you read up on WP:VANITY as to your concerns about this article making "NC State look bad." That is not the intention. Proven, factual, and reliable links are welcome as long as they are pertinent to the rivalry. As I said before, most of my work here is watching for vandalism, so I am not the most experienced at examining links for validity. Regards Fletch81 (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]